Covill v WorkCover Queensland - [2022] QSC 171

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Covill v WorkCover Queensland [2022] QSC 171

PARTIES:

LISA TANYA COVILL

(applicant)

v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND ABN 40 577 162 756

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 8972 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 August 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 August 2022

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

Declaration to be made in a form submitted by counsel that the applicant’s employment with Atlas People Pty Ltd as described in the applicant’s notice of claim for damages dated 27 July 2021 is “connected with” Queensland as defined in s 113 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – INSURANCE AND LEVIES – LIABILITY OF INSURERS AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was employed as a chef by a company with its principal place of business in Queensland – where the employer placed the applicant on temporary work assignments – where the applicant was given a temporary work assignment in New South Wales – where the applicant was given a subsequent temporary work assignment in the Northern Territory – where the applicant was injured during employment in the Northern Territory – whether the applicant “usually works” in the Northern Territory for the purposes of her employment – whether the applicant is “usually based” in Queensland for the purposes of her employment – whether the applicant’s employment is “connected with” Queensland for the purpose of s 113 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 113

Broadlex Services Pty Ltd v United Workers’ Union (2020) 296 IR 425; [2020] FCA 867, cited
Ferguson v WorkCover Queensland [2013] QSC 78, cited
Goldman v Ribshire Pty Ltd [2015] WADC 155, cited
IC Formwork Services Pty Ltd v Moir (No 2) (2020) 15 ACTLR 207; [2020] ACTCA 44, cited
Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight (2008) 58 SR (WA) 291; [2008] WADC 78, cited

Thomas v CGU [2020] TASSC 38, cited

COUNSEL:

P M Nolan for the applicant

K F Holyoak for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the applicant

BT Lawyers for the respondent

The 25-year-old applicant is a chef by trade. She was employed by Atlas People Pty Ltd.
Atlas employs chefs and places them with Atlas’ clients in short and long-term roles in the hospitality industry. It promotes itself to people like the applicant as providing assignments in different parts of Australia.
This attracted the applicant because she would have the benefit of visiting different parts of Australia at the same time as she was earning an income.
Her first assignment was at a hotel at Batemans Bay in New South Wales. This was followed by an assignment to work at Daly Waters in the Northern Territory, which started in late August 2019. After that assignment ended the applicant planned to move to the next assignment for Atlas, which may have been in any…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Covill v WorkCover Queensland

Details

AGLC: Covill v WorkCover Queensland [2022] QSC 171
Case: [2022] QSC 171
Decision Date: 17 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Covill v WorkCover Queensland involves an application for a declaration regarding the location of an employee's work for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant, who was employed as a chef, had been assigned to various temporary work locations including Queensland, New South Wales, and the Northern Territory. The applicant was injured while working in the Northern Territory and sought a declaration that her employment was connected with Queensland for the purposes of workers' compensation.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's employment was connected with Queensland based on the statutory definition in s 113 of the Act. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the applicant "usually works" in the Northern Territory, whether she is "usually based" in Queensland, and if her employment was "connected with" Queensland. The applicant argued that her employment was connected with Queensland because her employer's principal place of business was located in Queensland.

The court found that since the applicant was not usually based in one state for the purposes of her employment, the statutory provision in s 113(3)(c) applied. This provision states that the employment is connected with the state where the employer's principal place of business is located. Given that the employer's principal place of business was in Queensland, the court concluded that the applicant's employment was indeed connected with Queensland.

The court made a declaration in the form sought by the applicant and ordered other consequential matters, including costs, to be agreed upon by the parties. The final order was to declare that the applicant's employment with Atlas People Pty Ltd was connected with Queensland as defined in s 113 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

Declaration to be made in a form submitted by counsel that the applicant’s employment with Atlas People Pty Ltd as described in the applicant’s notice of claim for damages dated 27 July 2021 is “connected with” Queensland as defined in s 113 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Because the applicant was not usually based for the purposes of her employment in one State, s 113(3)(c) provides that her employment is connected with the State in which Atlas’ principal place of business in Australia is located. It is accepted that this is Queensland. Conclusion By application of s 113(3)(c) the applicant’s employment is connected with Queensland. I will make a declaration substantially in the form of the declaration sought by the applicant and make such other orders as are agreed by the parties concerning consequential matters, including costs. Subject to any submissions as to the form of orders, I propose to declare that the applicant’s employment with Atlas People Pty Ltd as described in the applicant’s notice of claim for damages dated 27 July 2021 is “connected with” Queensland as defined in s 113 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Covill v WorkCover Queensland [2022] QSC 171
PARTIES:	LISA TANYA COVILL (applicant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND ABN 40 577 162 756 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 8972 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 August 2022
JUDGE:	Applegarth J
ORDER:	Declaration to be made in a form submitted by counsel that the applicant’s employment with Atlas People Pty Ltd as described in the applicant’s notice of claim for damages dated 27 July 2021 is “connected with” Queensland as defined in s 113 of the *Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – INSURANCE AND LEVIES – LIABILITY OF INSURERS AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was employed as a chef by a company with its principal place of business in Queensland – where the employer placed the applicant on temporary work assignments – where the applicant was given a temporary work assignment in New South Wales – where the applicant was given a subsequent temporary work assignment in the Northern Territory – where the applicant was injured during employment in the Northern Territory – whether the applicant “usually works” in the Northern Territory for the purposes of her employment – whether the applicant is “usually based” in Queensland for the purposes of her employment – whether the applicant’s employment is “connected with” Queensland for the purpose of s 113 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 113 Broadlex Services Pty Ltd v United Workers’ Union (2020) 296 IR 425; [2020] FCA 867, cited Ferguson v WorkCover Queensland [2013] QSC 78, cited Goldman v Ribshire Pty Ltd [2015] WADC 155, cited IC Formwork Services Pty Ltd v Moir (No 2) (2020) 15 ACTLR 207; [2020] ACTCA 44, cited Tamboritha Consultants Pty Ltd v Knight (2008) 58 SR (WA) 291; [2008] WADC 78, cited Thomas v CGU [2020] TASSC 38, cited
COUNSEL:	P M Nolan for the applicant K F Holyoak for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the applicant BT Lawyers for the respondent